Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION  (Read 275885 times)

Offline Zannanza

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
While it could make GSO if a performance shortfall occurs, overcoming a performance shortfall will consume Xenon and reduce the operational lifetime of the satellite. SEP is not free.
Just did a quick search
1kg of Xenon costs ~$1200 and sending 1kg of Xenon to space on F9 costs $4,109
not a big deal for aerospace contracts, especially when you consider the extra cost of switching to a FH (FH can do a duo or even triple for the heaviest comm sats with its advertised 21,200 kg capacity to GTO)
also, electric propulsion has terribly high isp when compared with chemicals therefore the same delta v can be achieved with much much less fuel, just that you need to be patient.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2014 05:39 AM by Zannanza »

Online faramund

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 30
I think when people talk about the cost of SEP, they also add in the opportunity cost of lost revenues because of the time it takes to reach the correct orbit. They also talk about concerns about spending much longer passing through the Van Allen belts.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6034
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1487
  • Likes Given: 1212
I think when people talk about the cost of SEP, they also add in the opportunity cost of lost revenues because of the time it takes to reach the correct orbit. They also talk about concerns about spending much longer passing through the Van Allen belts.

I guess that is why at least some designs use both. Chemical propulsion for getting from GTO to GSO or at least near and SEP for station keeping. So even with some underperformance they at least should get ouf of much of the Van Allen Belt fast.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4913
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 150
I think when people talk about the cost of SEP, they also add in the opportunity cost of lost revenues because of the time it takes to reach the correct orbit. They also talk about concerns about spending much longer passing through the Van Allen belts.

I guess that is why at least some designs use both. Chemical propulsion for getting from GTO to GSO or at least near and SEP for station keeping. So even with some underperformance they at least should get ouf of much of the Van Allen Belt fast.

In terms of station keeping, can that be done while the sat is operational, as it sounds like an option using the FH capabilities and more Xenon attached to the sat ( not sure how) to provide sat operators much improved flexibility. 2016 is some time out, this maybe there is chance to design in this additional Xenon capability
« Last Edit: 02/22/2014 12:17 PM by Avron »

Offline fatjohn1408

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 13

 (Both the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 missions did apparently reserve some propellant for restart tests)


Has this been documented somewhere properly?

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
  • Liked: 1174
  • Likes Given: 987

 (Both the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 missions did apparently reserve some propellant for restart tests)


Has this been documented somewhere properly?

We were told the opposite.  Musk said that SpaceX did not reserve capacity on those flights.
Just because they relit the engine doesn't mean that they reserved propellant.

edit: typo
« Last Edit: 02/25/2014 09:00 PM by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6866
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2336
  • Likes Given: 700
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/40165ses-books-spacex-falcon-9-for-hybrid-satellite%E2%80%99s-debut

Quote
The two satellites, SES-9 and SES-10, both weigh about 5,300 kilograms and carry a mix of electric and chemical propellant systems. The question is, what tradeoffs is SES making to be able to fit their launches on the Falcon 9?
<snip>
For SES-10, built by Airbus Defence and Space, only the chemical propulsion system will be used for its Falcon-9 launch set for 2016. To compensate for the Falcon-9ís limits, the satellite will carry larger-than-usual chemical propellant tanks and make an extra couple of orbit-raising burns, meaning the time to final position will not be that much longer than with chemical propellant only.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
  • US
  • Liked: 764
  • Likes Given: 624
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding
Quote
SES: We expect SES-10 satellite, w/ 27 incremental xponders + replacement of AMC-3/-4 over LatAm, to launch in October on SpaceX Falcon 9.


Offline NaN

  • ... a free man
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 98
SpaceX signs first customer for launch of a reused rocket
SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

We've been hearing rumors for a while, exciting to see it in print!

And indeed the official preferred term for a used rocket is "flight-proven". It shows up no fewer than 6 times in the Yahoo/Business Wire article.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 321
Has anybody confirmed which core is being used for this flight?
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline Mariusuiram

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 98
Has anybody confirmed which core is being used for this flight?

I believe it is the CRS-8 core which is what people expected. But dont have a direct source other than Echologic on reddit.

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 33
Has anybody confirmed which core is being used for this flight?

23

From the LA Times article:
Quote from: Los Angeles Times
SESí satellite will launch on a first-stage booster that landed in April after delivering supplies to the International Space Station. That was the first rocket to land on a floating droneship.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2016 09:22 AM by jpo234 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 533
Well, all available digital extremities crossed that this goes well! It should be interesting to learn how much the recycling cost. It will be several times the 'operational' cost, of course, as I imagine multiple redundant checks and tests as this was the first attempt. However, it would still be interesting to see what the cost compared to a fresh core was.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Online TrevorMonty

At 5300kg to GTO, this will most likely final flight of this booster. Even if they recover to barge it may not fly again.


Online Chris Bergin

The SES release (linked above I know) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ses-10-launching-orbit-spacexs-072200113.html - pushes the term "flight-proven rocket" several times. I guess that makes sense given they have investors and such and that sounds better than "reused".

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6835
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 533
This is is probably just my optimism at work but, if SES-10 has its own boost motor (presumably expended after GOI), then SpaceX might be able to negotiate a lower S/C Sep altitude and thus save a little prop for the attempted core recovery. Even if F9-023 isn't in a reflyable condition after the mission, examining the first booster to fly and recover twice would be a scientific and engineering goldmine.

Why do I think that this is possible? Because SES have been talking about flying SES-10 on a recycled booster for a while. They may have been planning on this and had the spacecraft assembled appropriately.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!


Online rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 297
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 69
There seems to be some discrepancy in what was done to re-certify the booster.

The BBC is reporting that the booster was sent to McGregor and re-fired.

The LA Times is reporting that all of the engines were removed from the booster and sent to McGregor for individual testing. After the engines were re-certified, they were put back into the booster and then the whole booster went to McGregor for a test firing.

Both stories are compatible if the longer version (LA Times) is true.

Tags: